|
verybad posted:Here's some WoW derivative art for you: God, early computer graphics were lovely. Spent all their money on textures. Buy a fuckin' polygon, guys, am I right?
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Drifter posted:God, early computer graphics were lovely. It looks better in video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Gonna go ahead and wager that 90% of PoE's players will not have been influenced by ancient video games or recognize "archer + animal companion" as anything but a WoWism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
It sounds to me that your core complaint is, "WoW did it, therefore it's derivative of WoW." If someone can recognize a feature as something that WoW did, regardless of the history behind it that also informed why WoW made the choices it did--if any of the 12 million plus players who subscribed to that game ever play a fantasy game and see something that WoW, in all the years it's been running, also did--it is derivative of WoW.bathroom sounds posted:Gonna go ahead and wager that 90% of PoE's players will not have been influenced by ancient video games or recognize "archer + animal companion" as anything but a WoWism. Okay, so that's exactly your complaint. Because the most successful video game in history might be recognizable. Guess no one can ever use inventive and bubbly gnomes or wacky goblins or noble minotaurs or angry orcs ever again. Because those have even less basis in reality than a ranger, and WoW did it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
My core complaint is that I hate using pets in combat and I'm sad to see PoE decide to make combat animal companions integral to the ranger class. My secondary complaint is that WoW took a bunch of concepts, like D&D Animal Companions (which were as much like familiars as combat pets -- your super observant owl wasn't handling melee duty), and rangers being the best archers, and distilled it into a single class called the Hunter. There is nothing predating WoW as archetypal as the WoW Hunter with regards to an archer/animal companion combination. You could do it if you wanted, you could make the mechanics work that way, but the definitive combination of "melee animal companion" and "archer-ranger" is a WoW innovation. WoW did it first inasmuch as WoW made it an explicit archetype and then popularized. Regardless of the fact that WoW was also drawing inspiration from elsewhere, to mimic the archer/animal companion Hunter archetype in 2014 is to be derivative of WoW. In a game that has managed to make bards sound interesting, it's kinda lame that they either a) deliberately used the WoW Hunter as a starting point, or b) failed to recognize the glaringly obvious parallels. I'm happy they're doing neat things like a shared health pool but it doesn't change the fact that "archer + combat companion" screams World of Warcraft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:My core complaint is that I hate using pets in combat and I'm sad to see PoE decide to make combat animal companions integral to the ranger class. So if I understand your last two posts... 1) Rangers shouldn't be primarily bow and pet because you think most players will think it's based on WoW even though it's based on far older archtypes, and anything that even looks like it's based on WoW is bad? 2) WoW did bow and pet well, so now no-one else can do it. 3) You hate bow and pet, so PoE shouldn't do it. Other people have shown quite clearly that rangers have historically been all about having an animal companion. And have historically had a strong ranged component. And in this game, they have an animal companion, and strong ranged components (with the possibility of building melee if you prefer). I really don't see the problem. Of course, the fighter needs to stop hitting people with swords. That's so derivative of WoW's Warrior. I mean, come on! Sure it's always been a thing in D&D, but look how well WoW did it. How they took "hit things with a sword" and made it the warrior. They made and popularized an archtype there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there's a screeching pedant missing from RPGCodex at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
DAoC did hunters with a permanent animal companion before WoW by the way. And in D&D, ranger companions were mostly a liability. They didn't have anywhere near enough HP, armor or saves to participate in level appropriate fights and if you tried to do so you'd have to get a new one every week. Their only powergaming use was for scouting, something that doesn't exist in a CRPG. Compare that to WoW (and DAoC before that) where many hunter players got quite invested in their companions and the class synergizes extremely well with them and I'd say it's pretty clear which model you'd want to take as an example. Those classes actually spawned two of the most completionist fansites in their time. peak debt fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:I'm pretty sure there's a screeching pedant missing from RPGCodex at the moment. I hate pedanphiles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
WoW has paladins that wear armor and cast protective spells, anything that does that now is imitating WoW. WoW has dudes with swords better not have any of those
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Oh yall need to relax, if he doesn't like the class he doesn't like the class.
The Chad Jihad fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
The lesson to be learned from all this is that classes are bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
This is exactly like the arguments that 4e is 'tabletop WoW' because fighters can actually do their jobs now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
I liked the Archer kit for Rangers in Baldur's Gate 2. The bonuses were super great. For Rangers, I always thought of them as outdoorsmen more than anything. Able to track and fashion implements using basic materials found on the land. If you wanted something tracked, trapped or killed from afar you asked for a Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
I think rangers work better in tabletop cause you can like track a deer or make a whistle out of a piece of grass or whatever dumb nonsense people do in the wilderness
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Well if the ranger having a pet is such a negative, couldn't someone just make a fighter that specialized in bows, duel wielding and nature skills? There is some flexibility and customization of the different classes after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Mr.Pibbleton posted:Well if the ranger having a pet is such a negative, couldn't someone just make a fighter that specialized in bows, duel wielding and nature skills? There is some flexibility and customization of the different classes after all. Or he could send the pet to the opposite corner of the map any time combat started. Tell it to go sit in a corner far away from the combat. Or "guard the retreat, so we don't end up being surrounded", as someone with a reputation as a diplomat would say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
AXE COP posted:This is exactly like the arguments that 4e is 'tabletop WoW' because fighters can actually do their jobs now. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
The standard-ish D&D class lineup has a glut of folks typically with melee weapons (or fists) individually pounding away HP on enemies using their own brand of Special Class Stuff: barbarians, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, and rogues. If we did not pair rangers with animal companions, I still would have tried to pair animal companions (or something like it) with some class because it creates a much different dynamic to how the class operates. This is also why monks use Wounds to power abilities, ciphers use Focus instead of standard /encounter /rest spells, and why chanters have their own wacky wild mechanics. Rangers seem like the most appropriate fit for a creature companion. We could have said "actually barbarians have animal companions". I don't think it would have made the game inherently better and you'd have AC-loving ranger fans asking why their rangers can't get animal companions when barbarians do. Or, as some have pointed out, we could have not had animal companions at all. We'd still have AC-loving ranger fans asking where animal companions are. Of course we could also make animal companions optional, which would almost assuredly wind up making the class feel like a mushy soup of... something. I think that's the least appealing route of all. We are making 11 classes for a broad audience. With every class update we do, someone is upset about how we are developing the classes. Sometimes their concerns can be addressed without fundamentally changing a lot about the class. Other times, we can't. If you want Obsidian to make a classless skill-based game, I certainly won't object (especially if it's a historical game -- classless skill-based games are what I make and prefer to play on my own time), but those proposals always seem to go over like a lead balloon. The IE games were class- and level-based and I think most of the people who backed the game want classes. The trade-off is that there's no way for us to structure classes in a way that everyone likes. I have known that for as long as I've been working with class-based games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:My core complaint is that I hate using pets in combat and I'm sad to see PoE decide to make combat animal companions integral to the ranger class. You know you can just play a rogue right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
rope kid posted:If you want Obsidian to make a classless skill-based game, I certainly won't object (especially if it's a historical game -- classless skill-based games are what I make and prefer to play on my own time), but those proposals always seem to go over like a lead balloon. The IE games were class- and level-based and I think most of the people who backed the game want classes. The trade-off is that there's no way for us to structure classes in a way that everyone likes. I have known that for as long as I've been working with class-based games. Prokhor Zakharov posted:You know you can just play a rogue right? Like in BG2, if I rolled a rogue but visualized him as some sort of ranger, I'd still be stuck doing the rogue stronghold quests and joining a thieves guild. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
rope kid posted:The standard-ish D&D class lineup has a glut of folks typically with melee weapons (or fists) individually pounding away HP on enemies using their own brand of Special Class Stuff: barbarians, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, and rogues. If we did not pair rangers with animal companions, I still would have tried to pair animal companions (or something like it) with some class because it creates a much different dynamic to how the class operates. This is also why monks use Wounds to power abilities, ciphers use Focus instead of standard /encounter /rest spells, and why chanters have their own wacky wild mechanics. Rangers seem like the most appropriate fit for a creature companion. We could have said "actually barbarians have animal companions". I don't think it would have made the game inherently better and you'd have AC-loving ranger fans asking why their rangers can't get animal companions when barbarians do. Or, as some have pointed out, we could have not had animal companions at all. We'd still have AC-loving ranger fans asking where animal companions are. Of course we could also make animal companions optional, which would almost assuredly wind up making the class feel like a mushy soup of... something. I think that's the least appealing route of all. I don't think I've posted in this thread yet, but just wanted to say that I trust you guys. Every update I read about the game gets me more excited and I honestly can't wait to try it out. I love role-playing in these kinds of games and as long as you have some kind of holy-roller class that I can play as a lawfully good knight-errant I'll be so happy. Keep up the good work, and don't worry about the naysayers. As you pointed out, there really is no way to make everyone happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Why didn't you go in the BG2 kits direction? Didn't seem like a good ROI on dev time? Because its difficult enough to make 11 classes distinctive. You try and do 33 and the majority are going to be bland or poo poo (as they were in BG2)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Gonna go ahead and wager that 90% of PoE's players will not have been influenced by ancient video games or recognize "archer + animal companion" as anything but a WoWism. That's an awful cynical view, thinking that people won't recognize a concept more ancient than the concept of having a concept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Why didn't you go in the BG2 kits direction? Didn't seem like a good ROI for the dev time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
I don't get the aggressive posting about bathroom sounds complaint. To me, it just sounds like he wants an Archer/Scout class, based around ranged attacks, suppressive attacks maybe, or maybe even a utility type character (Shooty man with arrows/bolts that do all sorts of crazy things like having magic spells on the end or something). And not, well, a WoW Hunter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
User0015 posted:I don't get the aggressive posting about bathroom sounds complaint. To me, it just sounds like he wants an Archer/Scout class, based around ranged attacks, suppressive attacks maybe, or maybe even a utility type character (Shooty man with arrows/bolts that do all sorts of crazy things like having magic spells on the end or something). He summed it up pretty well with: bathroom sounds posted:rope kid cleared it up a page or two ago, but my initial concern re: playing something like a rogue-"ranger" would be situations like the Strongholds in BG2 where you are railroaded by your class even if its at odds with the fantasy you've constructed in your head. In other words, he wants to be something that plays like something else. I dig the whole Shooty-man thing though, sans pet. I've been a sucker for crossbows in every fantasy genre I've played. I don't mind nabbing a Rogue or ideally a Warrior archtype and focusing them on that aspect if there isn't a sweet-spot ideal class pre-made for that purpose though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
User0015 posted:I don't get the aggressive posting about bathroom sounds complaint. To me, it just sounds like he wants an Archer/Scout class, based around ranged attacks, suppressive attacks maybe, or maybe even a utility type character (Shooty man with arrows/bolts that do all sorts of crazy things like having magic spells on the end or something). 1. First, I dislike using pets in combat. I don't care if its the WoW Hunter or the Diablo II Necromancer -- I'm just not a fan of it at a gut level, for whatever reason. I am therefore not thrilled at combat pets being integral to a class I typically enjoy playing. 2. Second, "archer + melee combat pet" absolutely screams WoW Hunter to me. I get that RL hunters have had pet dogs since prehistory, and that rangers have had animal companions in D&D for multiple editions. However, in my mind it's WoW that has largely been responsible for proliferating the idea that "ranger" = "archer" + "combat pet". WoW didn't really redefine any other class in the same way. Its fighter is a stock fighter, its paladin is a stock paladin. I guess it popularized the warlock more than redefined it. But it certainly redefined the ranger. I'm sure PoE's ranger will be as creative and interesting as its other classes, but superficially it looks derivative of the Hunter. So those are my points let's talk about something else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
How about giving the ranger a passive ability that disables animal companion and gives you some other bonuses or something. You can call it "Lone Ranger" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
User0015 posted:And not, well, a WoW Hunter. So you didn't read the "aggressive" posting, then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
So is there a Godwin equivalent for "b-but World of Warcraft!" for video/tabletop games?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:How about giving the ranger a passive ability that disables animal companion and gives you some other bonuses or something. You can call it "Lone Ranger" This is a good idea. A talent or the like where you take on an aspect of the animal you are deliberately not using in order to get a buff would be pretty fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:In other words, he wants to be something that plays like something else. If rolling a rogue is proposed as a way to play a more Baldur's Gate-themed woodsman ranger character in PoE, then I hope I won't be railroaded by class-based subplots like the strongholds in BG2. Though I guess your post gets to the heart of it -- PoE says "Ranger" = X and I say "Ranger" = Y. I lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:I think a more fair interpretation would be There's going to be one really in-depth stronghold for all classes so you can play a ranged rogue, stack Survival and likely not know the difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Though I guess your post gets to the heart of it -- PoE says "Ranger" = X and I say "Ranger" = Y. I lose. This I can understand. I mean, take 4th edition barbarians, for example. I liked the interpretation of a barbarian who was modestly armored and used large, two handed weapons to cleave guys in half in swathes, you know? A martial powerhouse. But a big part of 4th edition barbarians was using rage to tap into the explicitly "primal" elemental forces, sometimes becoming rime encrusted or giving off an aura of lightning. It made the class unique, tapping into primal sources, but it wasn't what I had been hoping for. In that regard, you have my sympathies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:There's going to be one really in-depth stronghold for all classes so you can play a ranged rogue, stack Survival and likely not know the difference. Yeah, rogues are guerrilla fighters, as well as, thieves, debutantes ect. I don't think it's going to force you to be a stealy-man if you play rogue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:I think a more fair interpretation would be rope kid posted:Class is one of the less frequent conditions for dialogue replies and it usually has to do with something very specific to how the class actually operates. For something having to do with the wilderness, hunting, etc., we typically check the Survival skill. Rangers get an inherent bonus in Survival but other classes are not restricted from taking points in it at all. I hope this helps alleviate your fears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Yeah, rogues are guerrilla fighters, as well as, thieves, debutantes ect. I don't think it's going to force you to be a stealy-man if you play rogue. Rogue is a fighting style, not a lifestyle, in other words. The same appears to be true of the Fighter and the Ranger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
bathroom sounds posted:Some people enjoy the roleplaying aspect of D&D as much or more than the combat simulation Traditionally, the roleplaying aspect of D&D has existed around the combat simulation, the rules exist in pretty much every edition of D&D to simulate combat. All 4e did was make combat into a board game rather than war gaming derived simulation. Roleplaying, at least in D&D, has never had nor needed strong mechanical support. Unless you're the type of person who wants to turn social interaction into a mechanistic war game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
I like that. Because it means I can play a barbarian as a civilized man. A civilized man with a dashing hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:46
|
|